Detroit's Assault on Mileage Bill

By DORON P. LEVIN,

Published: May 11, 1991

DETROIT, May 10—
The American auto industry, a perennial straggler in Washington regulatory battles, has been waging an uncharacteristically effective fight against proposed legislation to make cars and trucks much more fuel efficient.

The focus of the campaign is a bill sponsored by Senator Richard H. Bryan, a Nevada Democrat, that would raise the corporate average fuel-economy standard, known as CAFE, to 40 miles a gallon, from the current 27.5, over 10 years. The Bryan bill has cleared the Senate Commerce Committee and awaits action by the full Senate. Similar bills have been proposed in the House.

Auto makers contend that if the bill became law, it would shoehorn Americans into tiny cars akin to today's Geo Metro and eliminate production of full-size models. President Bush, whose economic advisers prefer a market approach to reducing fuel consumption, has promised to veto the measure. Supporters Back Off

As industry pressure against the bill has grown more intense, even some of the bill's original supporters are beginning to back away. One of its co-sponsors, Senator Dale Bumpers, Democrat of Arkansas, has said he is no longer sure the bill's efficiency goals are feasible.

But even if the Bryan bill fails, auto makers fear that fuel-efficiency initiatives will permanently remain on Congress's agenda.

In the past, Detroit's efforts in Washington have mostly been limited to lobbying, and more often than not, the attempts have fallen flat. But this time, the industry has geared up a grass-roots lobbying and education effort, called the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, to argue against far-reaching fuel-efficiency standards.

Headed by Diane Steed, a former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the lobbying group has attracted constituencies as diverse as tool and die makers, cattlemen and campground owners, who are willing to rally around the comfort and hauling capacity of the large car and truck. "Traditionally, debates like this have been between Congress and the auto industry," said Ron DeFore, a spokesman for the coalition. "We think we are making a tremendous difference."

Environmental and conservation groups disagree with Detroit, producing studies suggesting that technological changes could significantly improve fuel efficiency without sacrificing much of the size or usefulness of vehicles.

"The auto industry has been crying wolf for decades," said Dan Becker, the Sierra Club's director of energy programs. "Back in 1974, when the first CAFE bill was being discussed, Ford said we'd all be driving Pintos and Mavericks if it got passed." The Sierra Club asserts that the Bryan bill will save the country 2.5 million barrels of oil a day and that vehicles will remain about the same size.

The Center for Auto Safety, a nonprofit research foundation that is often critical of auto makers, published a report last month suggesting that safety would not be compromised by strict economy standards. Its findings contradict those of the Department of Transporation, which said the Bryan bill would lead to smaller cars and more highway deaths. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is supported by the insurance industry, agrees.

The auto industry's grass-roots and special-interest organizing infuriates the opposition, which has used similar tactics in the name of tougher regulation. Clarence M. Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, dismissed the Coalition for Vehicle Choice as "an industry front that only gives the appearance of a broad-based coalition." And Mr. Ditlow accused Ms. Steed of "weakening fuel-efficiency standards when she was in charge of N.H.T.S.A." Under Study by Experts

Most lawmakers lack the technical expertise to evaluate which side is right, so the Department of Transportation has enlisted a committee of the National Academy of Sciences to determine what standards are technically and economically feasible. The panel hopes to submit its findings by June 30, although the process could drag through the summer.

The crux of the auto makers' brief is that average fuel efficiency has doubled since 1975 and that few technological innovations remain that could bolster efficiency as quickly as the Bryan bill would require. Indeed, the size and weight of the average car has shrunk since 1975, and fuel efficiency has doubled. As cars and engines got smaller, Detroit says, many consumers simply switched to roomier trucks and truck-like vehicles, which conform to more liberal fuel-efficiency standards.

Most cars already have front-wheel drive, which reduces weight and delivers power to the wheels more efficiency, and enhanced aerodynamics, which reduces wind resistance. Adding refinements to those designs and other improvements, like tire innovations, will gradually raise the fleet average, but not by the 40 percent envisioned by the Bryan bill over the next decade, auto makers say.

The politics of CAFE are complex and only partly related to the question of whether imposing fuel efficiency on auto makers effectively promotes conservation. Although the Bush Administration damaged the Bryan bill's chances for passage by promising a veto, the bill's backers hold something the Administration wants: support for expanded oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Lobbyists and political strategists say the Administration may be willing to trade support for higher fuel-efficiency standards in return for expanded drilling rights in Alaska. Such a swap could be carried out in an energy bill sponsored by Senators J. Bennett Johnston, Democrat of Louisiana, and Malcolm Wallop, Republican of Wyoming. That bill is being debated in the Senate.

Lawmakers, Administration officials and those trying to increase economy standards concede privately that higher gasoline taxes are vital to reducing consumption. But rather than impose a direct tax on constituents, lawmakers like Mr. Bryan prefer that auto makers raise prices to pay for technological breakthroughs.

The auto makers decline to say what increase in CAFE would be technically and economically feasible. They want the power to raise fuel-efficiency standards assigned to the Transportation Department, rather than let Congress decide them. The law, therefore, would force auto makers to improve fuel efficiency continually, but in small increments that the Secretary of Transportation would control. Detroit thinks those rules would be easier to take.

Photo: The Chevrolet Cavalier, above, is one of several current models that get close to 27.5 miles a gallon, the current corporate average fuel-economy standard, known as CAFE. (General Motors) Auto makers contend that raising the average to 40 m.p.g. would cause the production of full-size models to end and restrict Americans to driving tiny cars like the Geo Metro, below. (Sara Krulwich/The New York Times) Graph: Tracks average fuel economy for passenger cars by model years, in miles per gallon, for domestic, imports, the Federal minimum and the proposed minimum*, 1980-2000 (*1991-2000) (Source: Bryan bill; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)